**2017–18 Offseason Thread**

AZmessDAWG

Loved and Defended The Criminal Until the Bitter End
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
46,222
Reaction score
3,563
We’ve been hearing a lot from the players and coaches lately about improved speed, especially at the WR position. Either everyone involved with the program is conspiring to feed us all bullshit, or we might actually have us some athletes this year.
They all had slow twitchectomy surgery.
 

KitKatApples

NW Season Ticket Holder (except IA games)
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
46,368
Reaction score
43,842
It's not like he said they all went out and got tans
 

Bob

Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
-5,716
We’ve been hearing a lot from the players and coaches lately about improved speed, especially at the WR position. Either everyone involved with the program is conspiring to feed us all bullshit, or we might actually have us some athletes this year.
maybe the corners are just really slow
 

Bob

Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
-5,716
I liked Mansell as a recruit but I'll be really surprised if Petras doesn't pass him within the next year
 
Last edited:

Bob

Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
-5,716
I'm kinda hoping he can redshirt but I could see it. Part of me hates to see someone lose a year of eligibility just for a handful of snaps in a blowout, but Tate and Stanley both hit the ground running as sophomores so there might be something to it
 

CurdMan

TurdMan DDS
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,115
Reaction score
-822
I'm kinda hoping he can redshirt but I could see it. Part of me hates to see someone lose a year of eligibility just for a handful of snaps in a blowout, but Tate and Stanley both hit the ground running as sophomores so there might be something to it
Agreed, but that doesn’t make sense unless this is Stanley’s last year - which would be surprising.
 

wondergrape

Has Bad Hair
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
7,690
Reaction score
-6,599
These are the greatest of possible words:
Beathard to Stanley to Petras
Trio of Hawkeyes and swifter than birds:
Beathard to Stanley to Petras
 

Swingin' Dick Stanzi

Dirty Cheat
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
2,263
Reaction score
1,871
Hopefully Fant doesn’t get drafted against his will later this month before he gets to play his third and final season with the Hawks.


 
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
9,743
Reaction score
-2,531
Hopefully Fant doesn’t get drafted against his will later this month before he gets to play his third and final season with the Hawks.


Holy fucking shit. That Iowa TE pro agility record is no joke. IIRC Dallas Clark had a top 5ish pro agility or 3 cone result the year he was at the combine, regardless of position. He might beat Kittle's 40 time too.

Not to mention the 42.1" vert...
 

nolookpass

Feels the Bern
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
92,328
Reaction score
-96,504
Id wouldn't be surprised to see Fant and Stanley both leave after this season.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
28,583
Reaction score
-6,048
QB for the rodents is wrong as well - I believe Croft transferred out
 

Monster

Guaranteed Proctor Would Play For Iowa
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
110,661
Reaction score
-2,365
Dispatch, I need to report a possible code 11-1 in progress on cfbhourglass.com. Request immediate back up to put down expectations.
 
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
45,705
Reaction score
11,206
I think this is a testament to the new technology in the S&C program. Apparently they are hitting target weights/strengths earlier and earlier in the offseason. It shows in that while we periodically have guys that are freaks, Fant is still in his 2nd year in the program.


See also James Daniels was a true third year able to turn pro.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
-37,468
wasn't Iowa the only school projecting him as a TE and not DE? that worked out.
 

douglasbader

Said Tom Brady's Career Was Over in 2008
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
134,778
Reaction score
28,776
It passed.

Just get rid of kickoffs
This seems like the easy fix, but then a team has zero chance at a comeback if they are down two scores because it eliminates the onside kick.
There have also been a number of games completely swung on a team with a surprise onside kick to start the half or after they have momentum in the second half.

I think the rule they passed now is about the best you can ask for without eliminating the kickoff. The other factor in this is the kickoff teams is where most of your young players get their first experience playing. If you eliminate kickoffs completely, then a lot of players won't see the field that usually would.
 

Bob

Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
-5,716
It passed.

Just get rid of kickoffs
This seems like the easy fix, but then a team has zero chance at a comeback if they are down two scores because it eliminates the onside kick.
I don't think that happens often enough to really be a huge concern. It's very cool when it does but the percentage of onside kicks that actually work has to to be pretty tiny. I imagine you could gimmick in some sort of rule to replace standard onside kicks too if you really thought about it for awhile.

I don't remember the exact number but kickoffs lead to concussions way more often than any other play, for what is ultimately a pretty minor part of the game. I don't think anyone would really notice a couple years. No one really gets mad at the concept of a touchback so it's not like the kickoff is THAT important
 
Last edited:

MikeyJoe

has a big head
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
74,295
Reaction score
17,846
Just get rid of kickoffs
This seems like the easy fix, but then a team has zero chance at a comeback if they are down two scores because it eliminates the onside kick.
I don't think that happens often enough to really be a huge concern. It's very cool when it does but the percentage of onside kicks that actually work has to to be pretty tiny. I imagine you could gimmick in some sort of rule to replace standard onside kicks too if you really thought about it for awhile.

I don't remember the exact number but kickoffs lead to concussions way more often than any other play, for what is ultimately a pretty minor part of the game. I don't think anyone would really notice a couple years. No one really gets mad at the concept of a touchback so it's not like the kickoff is THAT important
Even if the strategy is rarely used successfully, taking it away would has a large negative impact because you’re dramatically increasing the amount of time that a game can be definitively unwinnable.
 

douglasbader

Said Tom Brady's Career Was Over in 2008
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
134,778
Reaction score
28,776
This seems like the easy fix, but then a team has zero chance at a comeback if they are down two scores because it eliminates the onside kick.
I don't think that happens often enough to really be a huge concern. It's very cool when it does but the percentage of onside kicks that actually work has to to be pretty tiny. I imagine you could gimmick in some sort of rule to replace standard onside kicks too if you really thought about it for awhile.

I don't remember the exact number but kickoffs lead to concussions way more often than any other play, for what is ultimately a pretty minor part of the game. I don't think anyone would really notice a couple years. No one really gets mad at the concept of a touchback so it's not like the kickoff is THAT important
Even if the strategy is rarely used successfully, taking it away would has a large negative impact because you’re dramatically increasing the amount of time that a game can be definitively unwinnable.
I could see a situation where they take away the kickoff but not the option for an onside kick. It would of course take the surprise kicks out of the equation but still leave the option to keep the possibility of an end of the game comeback in play.
 

Bob

Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
-5,716
This seems like the easy fix, but then a team has zero chance at a comeback if they are down two scores because it eliminates the onside kick.
I don't think that happens often enough to really be a huge concern. It's very cool when it does but the percentage of onside kicks that actually work has to to be pretty tiny. I imagine you could gimmick in some sort of rule to replace standard onside kicks too if you really thought about it for awhile.

I don't remember the exact number but kickoffs lead to concussions way more often than any other play, for what is ultimately a pretty minor part of the game. I don't think anyone would really notice a couple years. No one really gets mad at the concept of a touchback so it's not like the kickoff is THAT important
Even if the strategy is rarely used successfully, taking it away would has a large negative impact because you’re dramatically increasing the amount of time that a game can be definitively unwinnable.
Schiano had an idea where the kicking team to could choose to either let the other team start with a touchback or send their offense out for a 4th and 20 (or maybe 4th and 15, I don't quite remember) from their own 35 yard line, which would give them a chance to keep the offense on the field without necessitating a kickoff. Or just give them the option to try an onside like Doug said.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
-37,468
I don't think that happens often enough to really be a huge concern. It's very cool when it does but the percentage of onside kicks that actually work has to to be pretty tiny. I imagine you could gimmick in some sort of rule to replace standard onside kicks too if you really thought about it for awhile.

I don't remember the exact number but kickoffs lead to concussions way more often than any other play, for what is ultimately a pretty minor part of the game. I don't think anyone would really notice a couple years. No one really gets mad at the concept of a touchback so it's not like the kickoff is THAT important
Even if the strategy is rarely used successfully, taking it away would has a large negative impact because you’re dramatically increasing the amount of time that a game can be definitively unwinnable.
I could see a situation where they take away the kickoff but not the option for an onside kick. It would of course take the surprise kicks out of the equation but still leave the option to keep the possibility of an end of the game comeback in play.
the idea that seems to have traction is that after TDs, a team would have 4th-and-15 or 4th-and-20 at their 30 or 35. they would have the option to punt it (your average net would be the 20 or 25) or go for it (think the conversion rate is like 10-15% which is about the same as an onside kick). you would also even have the fake punt as a surprise onside kick I guess. in theory it's sound although it feels contrived.
 
Top